Back in 1927, an American socialist, Norman Thomas, made a stunning validation of the ideological link between liberalism and socialism, and inadvertently acknowledged the inherently fraudulent nature of the American liberalism when he clairvoyantly asserted that

The American people would never vote for socialism,… [but] under the name of liberalism [nowadays rebranded as progressivism], the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day, America will be a socialist nation without even knowing how it happened.

The Democratic Party has acquired the Socialist program. So it should call itself Socialist. True, modern Socialists no longer ask for state ownership of the assets of production. But they ask for income equality which is central to the Socialist creed. The method for achieving wealth equality may be different but their goal remains the same.

Back in 1927, an American socialist, Norman Thomas, made a stunning validation of the ideological link between liberalism and socialism, and inadvertently acknowledged the inherently fraudulent nature of the American liberalism when he clairvoyantly asserted that

The American people would never vote for socialism,… [but] under the name of liberalism [nowadays rebranded as progressivism], the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day, America will be a socialist nation without even knowing how it happened.

The Democratic Party has acquired the Socialist program. So it should call itself Socialist. True, modern Socialists no longer ask for state ownership of the assets of production. But they ask for income equality which is central to the Socialist creed. The method for achieving wealth equality may be different but their goal remains the same.

The Democratic Party has acquired the Socialist program. So it should call itself Socialist. True, modern Socialists no longer ask for state ownership of the assets of production. But they ask for income equality which is central to the Socialist creed. The method for achieving wealth equality may be different but their goal remains the same.

It won't work and will lead to bankruptcy.

Cass, like the others I believe the case you are trying to make here is preposterous.

The fact that the votes are all running against you; is that not a clear indication that you would be well advised to modify your view somewhat?

The Democratic Party has acquired the Socialist program. So it should call itself Socialist. True, modern Socialists no longer ask for state ownership of the assets of production. But they ask for income equality which is central to the Socialist creed. The method for achieving wealth equality may be different but their goal remains the same.

It won't work and will lead to bankruptcy.

Cass, like the others I believe the case you are trying to make here is preposterous.
As
The fact that the votes are all running against you; is that not a clear indication that you would be well advised to modify your view somewhat?

As Aristotle said, in a democracy, the poor have the power because there are more of them. So, of course, the voters want redistributive policies. 60% of voters have below average income. 40% of voters have above average income. So politicians win elections by promising to transfer wealth from the 40% to the 60%.

But that does not make economic sense. Higher taxes will cause economic growth to slow down. At some point, too much of income redistribution will cause national bankruptcy.

Mean income (aka average income) = $46,550 in 2016
Median income (income level that divides population in half) = $31,099 in the same year.

This means that half of Americans earn less than $31,099 and half earn more than that. I estimate that 60% earn less than the average (or mean) income of $46,550.

So it wins votes for politicians to bang the social justice/soak the rich/income redistribution drum since the majority of voters benefit from robbing the minority of voters. It wins them power, money and girls.

As Aristotle said, in a democracy, the poor have the power because there are more of them.

F*** Aristitle! He lived in his time and not in ours. The "democracy" that inspired his thinking was the failed participatory democracy of Periclean Athens; not ours.

No! The poor do NOT have power because they are disorganised whereas (as I stated before) the rich and organised corporate interests are well organised political lobbyists and expert political manipulators unlike the victimised poor.

Why do you think that in almost all countries, including those like mine blessed with systems of elected government, the gap between rich and poor has grown and is still growing unacceptably wider?

Oh please Cassowary; pull your head out of your rectum and see how the world around you really works. Your habit of abstract theorizing based upon the borrowed authority of some loong deceased supposed "expert" moves me to rage by its sheer inanity.

As Aristotle said, in a democracy, the poor have the power because there are more of them.

F*** Aristitle! He lived in his time and not in ours. The "democracy" that inspired his thinking was the failed participatory democracy of Periclean Athens; not ours.

No! The poor do NOT have power because they are disorganised whereas (as I stated before) the rich and organised corporate interests are well organised political lobbyists and expert political manipulators unlike the victimised poor.

Why do you think that in almost all countries, including those like mine blessed with systems of elected government, the gap between rich and poor has grown and is still growing unacceptably wider?

Oh please Cassowary; pull your head out of your rectum and see how the world around you really works. Your habit of abstract theorizing based upon the borrowed authority of some loong deceased supposed "expert" moves me to rage by its sheer inanity.

You are supposed to be a man with higher education.

That is why I am correct. How do you explain progressive taxation? How do you explain the welfare state? How do you explain why money flows from the higher income group to the lower? I have given you a rational - There are more people below average income (let's call them the poor) than those above average income (the rich).

So common sense tells you that it pays politicians to redistribute income from the richer minority to the poorer majority. This is because every person has one vote. Money always flow from the weaker to the stronger.

That is why I am correct. How do you explain progressive taxation? How do you explain the welfare state? How do you explain why money flows from the higher income group to the lower?

How do I explain these things Cassowary? To remedy real social ills: to meet needs, not wants!

That misses the point. How did the voters vote for politicians who talk like this - what you just said above. It is because there are more voters who agree with this line of thinking. Those harmed by this line of thinking - the 40% above average income people ie Aristotle's rich - are in the minority. That is the point.

Cass, you might be an okay businessman but believe me you are neither macroeconomist nor social reformer.

I thank God you are not in charge of any nations political management: visualising the amount of harm you could do were you to act upon your pet fantasies from a position of power.

I think I am OK as a macroeconomist and social reformer as well. My policy prescription follows what has been practiced in my country and that has gone well. If you have read what I wrote months ago, Singapore was founded by Sir Thomas Raffles as a laizzez faire or free market port. The spirit of commerce was reinforced by commerce minded Chinese immigrants who came to trade.

Singapore success is the success of Anglo-Chinese capitalism. So we look with suspicion any Socialist notions that seek to overturn what has been working well. Far from harm, our ideas will do a lot of good around the world. My idea of social reform is focused on self improvement of the individual. The leftist seek improvements through government action - quite the reverse. I accept that government has a role but the individual must bear the large share of social reform.

A good example of this attitude is a speech by Dr Goh Keng Swee, a founder of Singapore. He said that the best way to develop a poor Third World countries is to send in the Protestant missionaries to give people the values that ensure economic success. So the focus must be individual improvement first. Government does have a role - maybe 20%. The rest - 80% - is up to the individual.